 |
High-Quality vs. High-Brow: Can Soft News Ever be the Best News?
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
1
Introduction: The Prevailing Notion of News Quality
Scholars working in the nexus of public opinion, political communication and presidentialpolitics have long debated the “proper” role of the press in a democratic society (Norris 2000,Schudson 1998, Zaller 1999, 2003, Bennett and Entman 2000). While many claim the media ina democracy have an obligation to inform citizens fully and thus equip them to fulfill theirresponsibilities as democratic citizens (e.g., Bennett 1997, Patterson, 2000), others see this as somuch wishful thinking, countering that the content of news is -- and must be -- determined by thevicissitudes of the media marketplace (Baum 2003; Hamilton 2003; Norris 2000; Zaller 1999,2003). For many – especially those in the former camp -- the current state of political news, andthus of citizens’ political education, is bleak (Patterson 1994, 2000; Bennett 2003). But others(e.g., Popkin 1993, Schudson 1998, Graber 2003, Zaller 2003) counter that a press that does notthoroughly inform citizens is not necessarily completely dysfunctional. Rather, they argue, theprevalent standards for what constitutes a properly informed citizenry are out of step with recentbreakthroughs in cognitive science concerning how human beings process information in orderto make decisions, such as voting for political candidates. For our purposes, the key implicationof this research is that citizens do not need complete information to make reasoned decisions,including with respect to voting.
1
Whether analysts believe the press must inform fully, somewhat, or has no democratic
obligation whatsoever, a widely shared, often tacit, understanding of “news quality” underliesthis fundamentally normative debate (e.g. Patterson
2000, Graber 2000). Patterson typifies this
perspective, arguing, in essence, that high “quality” news is hard news. He defines “hard” news,in turn, as news that covers breaking events involving top leaders, major issues, or significantdisruptions in the routines of daily life. “Information about these events,” Patterson asserts, “ispresumably important to citizens’ ability to understand and respond to the world of publicaffairs” (2000:3).
While close in spirit to Patterson’s definition, Zaller explicitly avoids equating high
quality with hard news. For Zaller, quality news “refers to matters of general social or politicalsignificance, [and] is implicitly intended to help citizens in their role as democratic decision-makers” (1999: 2). Zaller further specifies that "the question of news quality is whether newsprovides a sufficiently rich and engaging ration of political information to make democracywork" (2003: 111).
We agree with the general notion, illustrated in the preceding quotations from Patterson
and Zaller, that quality news supplies references to politically significant matters. However,unlike in these prevailing definitions of news quality, the implicit intention of media-suppliersdoes not factor into our definition. Moreover, as different authors’ understandings of high/lowquality and hard/soft news tend to drift together, we argue that these basic terms of the debateneed to be “pulled apart” and clarified analytically. Thus, to distinguish quality from hard news,we locate (and measure) quality at the nexus of media consumption and political behavior. Indoing so, we leave open the possibility that consumers might encounter such references in avariety of news formats—not just in hard news, as traditionally defined.
Apart from a tendency to equate “quality” with hard news, a second and more deeply
rooted agreement on the fundamental rationality of political participation also underlies the
1
See Sniderman (1993) for a review of this revisionist literature, which he terms the “new look”
in public opinion research.
|
| |
| |
|
|
1
Introduction: The Prevailing Notion of News Quality
Scholars working in the nexus of public opinion, political communication and presidential
politics have long debated the “proper” role of the press in a democratic society (Norris 2000,
Schudson 1998, Zaller 1999, 2003, Bennett and Entman 2000). While many claim the media in
a democracy have an obligation to inform citizens fully and thus equip them to fulfill their
responsibilities as democratic citizens (e.g., Bennett 1997, Patterson, 2000), others see this as so
much wishful thinking, countering that the content of news is -- and must be -- determined by the
vicissitudes of the media marketplace (Baum 2003; Hamilton 2003; Norris 2000; Zaller 1999,
2003). For many – especially those in the former camp -- the current state of political news, and
thus of citizens’ political education, is bleak (Patterson 1994, 2000; Bennett 2003). But others
(e.g., Popkin 1993, Schudson 1998, Graber 2003, Zaller 2003) counter that a press that does not
thoroughly inform citizens is not necessarily completely dysfunctional. Rather, they argue, the
prevalent standards for what constitutes a properly informed citizenry are out of step with recent
breakthroughs in cognitive science concerning how human beings process information in order
to make decisions, such as voting for political candidates. For our purposes, the key implication
of this research is that citizens do not need complete information to make reasoned decisions,
including with respect to voting.
1
Whether analysts believe the press must inform fully, somewhat, or has no democratic
obligation whatsoever, a widely shared, often tacit, understanding of “news quality” underlies
this fundamentally normative debate (e.g. Patterson
2000, Graber 2000). Patterson typifies this
perspective, arguing, in essence, that high “quality” news is hard news. He defines “hard” news,
in turn, as news that covers breaking events involving top leaders, major issues, or significant
disruptions in the routines of daily life. “Information about these events,” Patterson asserts, “is
presumably important to citizens’ ability to understand and respond to the world of public
affairs” (2000:3).
While close in spirit to Patterson’s definition, Zaller explicitly avoids equating high
quality with hard news. For Zaller, quality news “refers to matters of general social or political
significance, [and] is implicitly intended to help citizens in their role as democratic decision-
makers” (1999: 2). Zaller further specifies that "the question of news quality is whether news
provides a sufficiently rich and engaging ration of political information to make democracy
work" (2003: 111).
We agree with the general notion, illustrated in the preceding quotations from Patterson
and Zaller, that quality news supplies references to politically significant matters. However,
unlike in these prevailing definitions of news quality, the implicit intention of media-suppliers
does not factor into our definition. Moreover, as different authors’ understandings of high/low
quality and hard/soft news tend to drift together, we argue that these basic terms of the debate
need to be “pulled apart” and clarified analytically. Thus, to distinguish quality from hard news,
we locate (and measure) quality at the nexus of media consumption and political behavior. In
doing so, we leave open the possibility that consumers might encounter such references in a
variety of news formats—not just in hard news, as traditionally defined.
Apart from a tendency to equate “quality” with hard news, a second and more deeply
rooted agreement on the fundamental rationality of political participation also underlies the
1
See Sniderman (1993) for a review of this revisionist literature, which he terms the “new look”
in public opinion research.
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
